In believing “that Shakespeare himself played Caesar”, is John Briggs as convinced, therefore, that Shakespeare “did enact . . . so capital a calf” as Polonius, one of the many sacrifices in the Danish sequel Hamlet?

“Wills thinks Burbage played Cicero/Caesar - which is nonsense, of course, as Burbage played Brutus (it is unlikely that Burbage ever doubled roles.) It is very probable that Shakespeare himself played Caesar - but did he also double as Cicero?”

The idea that Burbage played either Caesar or Cicero is as “nonsensical” as the claim that he “of course” played Brutus, or that it is “probable” that Shakespeare played Caesar. There is absolutely no evidence to support any of those ideas. It’s as likely that Burbage played Antony; or that he didn’t play one of the two leads at all. The doubling of Caesar and Cicero is technically possible, but I don’t see how the case can be argued further. I can’t help but feel that these speculations about casting, almost always conducted in evidence-free territory despite the confident tone in which they are uttered, are generally as unenlightening as they are tiresome.